If you want to bring in cost to my arguments google powerwall/Australia. People are putting unsubsidized solar panels with battery back up. Why Australia and not here. Cost is a relative term. Their electricity costs 21/2 times as much as ours (heavily coal dependent). These systems are not price competitive here today but will be in the future. I'm sorry it's hard to explain science in a short paragraph.

"$16,000 for a solar installation with the Tesla Powerwall"

"Our analysis of the finances of Tesla’s Powerwall battery found that the payback period for purchasing Powerwall would be 38 years with on-peak rates at $0.15 per kilowatt hour and off-peak rates at $0.06 per kilowatt hour"

You'd have to save more than $100 a month on electricity costs to pay for itself in the thirteen years it takes before you have to buy new batteries.

The sun just doesn't put out enough energy to replace oil. To SUPPLEMENT it...YES. But not replace it.

Oil ALLOWED modern western civilization. We will continue to be dependent on it until a NEW "free" energy source is developed. A "Mr Fusion".

The whole CO2 thing is a hoax. They want us to conserve energy because we're at the limits of PROVIDING it in the amounts that a developing world requires. America is being brought down so the developing countries CAN develop. China uses more energy than America.

The limits to growth are limits to available energy. Once all the fields are fracked...what do we do then?

DO we NEED to cut back on our use of oil...of course...we don't disagree there. At this rate it's NOT going to last forever.

What we MUST do...is cut the worlds population back to sustainable levels. We MUST cut it by at least half.

Let ME try again...

Oil has a positive EREI...a battery is negative. You GET MORE energy from a barrel of oil than you use to get it...a batter consumes MORE energy than it can supply.

"Energy returned on energy invested:
In physics, energy economics, and ecological energetics, energy returned on energy invested; or energy return on investment, is the ratio of the amount of usable energy delivered from a particular energy resource to the amount of exergy used to obtain that energy resource. It is a distinct measure from energy efficiency as it does not measure the primary energy inputs to the system, only usable energy.

"When the EROEI of a resource is less than or equal to one, that energy source becomes a net "energy sink", and can no longer be used as a source of energy, but depending on the system might be useful for energy storage (for example a battery)."

"To be considered viable as a prominent fuel or energy source a fuel or energy must have an EROEI ratio of at least 3:1"

"For example, given a process with an EROEI of 5, expending 1 unit of energy yields a net energy gain of 4 units. The break-even point happens with an EROEI of 1 or a net energy gain of 0."

"A 2015 review in Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews assessed the energy payback time and EROI of solar photovoltaics. In this study, which uses an insolation of 1700/kWh/m²/yr and a system lifetime of 30 years, mean harmonized EROIs between 8.7 and 34.2 were found. Mean harmonized energy payback time varied from 1.0 to 4.1 years."

"In regard to fossil fuels, when oil was originally discovered, it took on average one barrel of oil to find, extract, and process about 100 barrels of oil. The ratio, for discovery of fossil fuels in the United States, has declined steadily over the last century from about 1000:1 in 1919 to only 5:1 in the 2010s"

"ESOEI (or ESOIe) is used when EROEI is below 1. "ESOIe is the ratio of electrical energy stored over the lifetime of a storage device to the amount of embodied electrical energy required to build the device."

"How deep should the probing in the supply chain of the tools being used to generate energy go? For example, if steel is being used to drill for oil or construct a nuclear power plant, should the energy input of the steel be taken into account, should the energy input into building the factory being used to construct the steel be taken into account and amortized? Should the energy input of the roads which are used to ferry the goods be taken into account? What about the energy used to cook the steelworker's breakfasts? These are complex questions evading simple answers.[37] A full accounting would require considerations of opportunity costs and comparing total energy expenditures in the presence and absence of this economic activity."

These are ALL NEGATIVE...meaning they require MORE energy than they output.

"Storage Technology ESOEI

Zinc bromide battery 9
Vanadium redox battery 10
Pumped hydroelectric storage 704
NaS battery 20
Lithium ion battery 32
Lead acid battery 5
Compressed air energy storage 792"

I didn't say tomorrow renewable would be price competitive but I did give you one country where it is price competitive. You clearly don't understand the science and I'm ok with that as long as you don't try to make scientific arguments. Gas displaced coal and wind and solar are displacing gas in certain parts of the country, all based on price. If you want cheaper electricity prices long term you should push renewables because as a new technology it will drop in price as the industry matures. If you want to give more money to the Koch brothers go for gas and oil. Those websites your reading are supported by the Koch brothers.

I understand completely...

"all based on price" but NOT EROEI.

HOW did we get BACK to this???

We were talking about BATTERIES...YOU claim that batteries are more energy efficient than fuel.

PROVE THAT CLAIM...not "in the future"...not "maybe some day".

You said batteries WILL replace fuels because they're more energy efficient. Show me.

If you can't/won't talk about batteries and their energy cost vs energy output...we have nothing else to say...you keep dragging me out onto tangents that have nothing to do with your claim.

Yes...Australia has solar and batteries out in the bush where electric hookups are prohibitive...now...WHAT does that have to do with batteries being more energy efficient than fuels in cars?

Get a handle on the ADD...and focus.

Get the EROEI for a battery and oil...compare them...oil wins...batteries...ALL batteries...lose...because they can NEVER be as efficient as oil...because they MUST BE MANUFACTURED and oil flows out of the ground.

A barrel of oil is a barrel of free energy...a battery MUST be manufactured USING energy and MUST then be FILLED with MORE energy than it will be able to deliver. Can't you see that?

They're pushing us towards alternative energy NOT because it'll EVER replace the energy of fossil fuels...but because WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF READILY PUMP-ABLE OIL. we must SAVE...hold onto...our precious oil. It's too valuable to burn up. Almost EVERYTHING is made with oil. Plastics, chemicals...

I'm done doug...if you don't see it now...you won't with me explaining it.

It's a con to steal your money...steal your labor...it's what they do. Working Americans work until May 24th to pay the government. We've given them $20 trillion so far...what have we gotten for it? America has dropped from # 1 to #25.

MOST "crises" aren't really...they're just sold as one to get the IGNORANT public behind it.

The earth IS warming...IF you believe the numbers...(ask people in ND right now if there's global warming)...but it's NOT CO2 doing it. CO2 contributes less than 1% to the greenhouse effect. That's science I DO know too.

One more...

A barrel of oil has 1667 kilowatt-hours of power
My last electric bill was 555 kilowatt-hour
My entire house can run for 3 months on the energy from ONE barrel of oil. That cost me $60.
How much would the batteries cost that could run my house 24/7 for 3 months? What would be the ENERGY cost to "charge them up"? MORE than they discharged because batteries are NOT 100% efficient.

Better?

Gas tanks and batteries both store energy. This has nothing to do with efficiency. You can drive a car 30 miles for $3 of gas. You can drive an electric car about 30 miles for $1 of electricity. This is not a comparison of efficiency just a statement of fact.

But MORE "energy" was used for those 30 miles driven by battery compared to a gallon of gas. A gas tank...$50 is a LOT cheaper than $10,000 worth of batteries.

PRICE has NOTHING to do with it...we're not talking about price...we're talking about ENERGY.

Efficiency has everything to do with it...you claimed a battery can replace fuel. It will be as/more efficient.

Tell me HOW MUCH ENERGY goes into making/charging a battery and how much energy is used to deliver a gallon of gas. For the gas...it's 1/5th...20% of the energy contained in that gallon of gas was expended refining and delivering that gallon of gas.

For a lithium battery it's MINUS 32. 32X the energy contained in the battery is used to build/charge it. And EVERY time you recharge it...you go MORE negative because NO battery is 100% efficient.

It IS all about efficiency. Until we can build a battery that recharges itself with water and air...a battery CAN'T be more efficient.

You have too many ideas which are confusing your thoughts. If you are going to buy a car and one saves you $2 for every 30 miles what you want to know is how much is that over the life of the car. For a car that lasts 150,000 miles the savings would be 150,000 divided by 30 times $2. The answer is $10,000. Efficiency of the battery has nothing to do with this calculation, the energy stored in a gallon of gas has nothing to do with this calculation. The thing you care about is what does it cost to drive to the store. If gasoline goes up to $5 a gallon your savings would be $20,000 over the life of the car and now it is price competitive. When the cost of the battery drops $10,000 EV's will be price competitive. None of this has anything to do with your pseudo science and you don't need to know science to decide which type of car is cheaper.

ANOTHER tangent...

No...YOU care what it costs in DOLLARS...I'm talking about ENERGY cost...HOW MUCH ENERGY DID IT TAKE TO MAKE THE BATTERIES...your battery car costs/requires multiples MORE in ENERGY costs (energy USED) to manufacture and keep charged.

If "gas" goes up to $5 a gallon...the dollar COST of your batteries WILL go up too, the dollar COST of charging them WILL go up too.

It IS a "zero sum" equation. As oil goes up...everything goes up with it. Because there is NOTHING that can replace oil right now.

I'm done...maybe someone else can explain it to you...have a good new year.

[QUOTE=Guest]ANOTHER tangent...

No...YOU care what it costs in DOLLARS...I'm talking about ENERGY cost...HOW MUCH ENERGY DID IT TAKE TO MAKE THE BATTERIES...your battery car costs/requires multiples MORE in ENERGY costs (energy USED) to manufacture and keep charged.

If "gas" goes up to $5 a gallon...the dollar COST of your batteries WILL go up too, the dollar COST of charging them WILL go up too.

It IS a "zero sum" equation. As oil goes up...everything goes up with it. Because there is NOTHING that can replace oil right now.

I'm not sure why you can't grasp this but I'll try again. If you buy a battery for your flashlight the cost of all of the energy to make that battery is included in the purchase price. It has to be less than the purchase price or the battery company would lose money on every battery and they soon would be out of business. Everready batteries have been around for a long time. Flashlight battery or battery for an electric car the economics are the same.
Next year I am going to buy a Chevy Bolt, an all electric car. Purchase price (without subsidies) is 38K. It will save me 10k in gasoline costs over its lifetime. If I compare it to gas cars costing 28k they come out ahead, more room and no limit on range but not by much. In today's prices the EV is almost price competitive. Why am I doing it, I want to say the the Koch brothers,Saudis, Iranians and Russians try being poor for awhile. If my economic analysis of buying an EV tomorrow is wrong please show me the error. Please don't try to baffle with scientific bull**** you don't understand.

[QUOTE=Guest]You're stuck on MONEY...money cost. Money cost has NOTHING to do with how much ENERGY it cost because right now "energy" is almost free. Transportation via fuels, electricity generation via fuels...oil and natural gas are ALMOST free energy. That is WHY your batteries are "cheap" because the energy used to make/charge them is cheap.

BUT...the point you don't get is...energy IS cheap because it's "fossil" fuels...energy sitting in the ground...waiting to be lit. It only costs $3 a gallon because speculators decided it was worth $3 a gallon...it's also $3 a gallon because there are 9 billion people ALL wanting some of it. Oil COULD be 30 cents a gallon.

But your batteries...they MUST be built...from scratch...EVERYTHING going into you battery NEEDS energy to be made. And THEN it needs MORE energy to charge...more than you'll EVER get out.

STOP thinking in terms of dollars...START thinking in terms of energy consumed and energy output.

A barrel of oil RELEASES 5X more energy than is required to "make" that barrel. A Lithium battery CONSUMES 32X MORE energy to manufacture and charge than is will release during use. The MORE times you use your battery the WORSE the costs become because each recharge uses more energy than the battery can release.

Your batteries are ONLY possible because there is almost unlimited CHEAP fossil fuels to create the energy required to create the battery.

You are talking "dollars", I'm talking about actual "energy" Oil is a better "value" in energy terms. Dollar values are arbitrary and capricious. Dollar values change...energy requirements/output are fairly fixed.

[QUOTE=Guest]Last comment. If you want to talk cost in terms of entropy, btu's and other measures of the chemistry involved my suggestion is to take two semesters of calculus, two of general chemistry and one of thermodynamics. Then we can have a scientific argument. Other that that it's like I'm trying to explain algebra to a second grader.

[QUOTE=Guest]Yea right...bring it on bad boy. You're a poseur.

"Dollar values change...energy requirements/output are fairly fixed."

You have a problem with that? You can go down to the La Brea tar pits and find the FREE energy USED to build things...like your batteries. I could heat a house for decades...I could use it for steam power...there are ALL kinds of uses for that oil...just sitting there...waiting to be scooped out.

Where's your battery?

We have to wait for the lithium to be mined and processed into metal...VERY energy costly. Then other items need to be manufactured...again ENERGY costly. It all has to be put together in a factory somewhere...more ENERGY.

My barrel of oil cost me the energy to fill a barrel...100 calories? I will get 8 man years of energy...of work...from it.

Is your battery ready yet? How much energy have you spent so far?

You WILL get 32X LESS energy OUT of a lithium battery than you put in.

BECAUSE: "energy requirements/output are fairly fixed"

ALL batteries are energy SINKS...they consume FAR more...32X more...energy than they create. That energy comes from fossil fuels.

NO "alternative energy source" is "self sufficient". Only oil is self sufficient because it's "saved sun energy". Meaning it can CREATE more energy than was used to get the outputted energy. More energy goes into a nuclear plant, a solar plant, wind farm than will EVER come out of it.

It's a scam.

Oil is 8 man years in a barrel. Solar, wind, and BATTERIES...ALL...require MUCH more energy to build than they'll ever produce. We CAN build them ONLY because we have OIL to provide the vast energy needed. It takes 32 barrels of oil to make a lithium battery that outputs the energy in ONE barrel of oil.

Take away oil and you take away modern western civilization.

[QUOTE=Guest]After all those big words can you explain to me how Costa Rico ran there grid for 300 days last year without any oil or coal? Looks like one figured out how to do it.